Can't seem to get colour into landscapes

[Ms Monny]

Thanks Phil....you are right about adjusting one thing in LR which only makes another worse...thats what was happening...I was trying to add more blacks into the image but only to certain areas. I will definately check out the tut on the adjustment brush...I have used it before but not that good at it!! Your edit looks great...it has brought the sky back, made the tree have more colour and depth and I am a fan of the vignette too. Much appreciated in what you did.

Geoff....LOL....I won't get into that debate!!!

Rick....Thanks also for the editing...it certainly has brought out the autumn colours....there is so much to learn...this luckily is only down the road so I am going back this weekend to see if I can improve on it. I actually wanted to get another area up the road but as I drove past there was someone else there with a very very big lens, so I kept driving on! I want a more abstract one with the netting.

Kym....thats what I thought but unfort I only have the one image. Maybe next time.

THANKS EVERYONE FOR HELPING ME OUT!!

[ricktas]

There is also an almost hidden feature in lightroom that should do with more publication, yet it is hidden away as a small dot. It is called the targeted adjustment tool (TAT). Have a look here to see where to find it, and what it does.

[geoffsta]

Nik software has some brilliant filters. I personally like "Glamor Glow", "B&W Conversion", and sometimes the gradual filters. Burnt sienna is great for giving images that dirty look.
Nik and CS5 is a great combination.

[Ms Monny]

Nik software is only for Nikon users, yes?? Mind you once it is in the computer, the computer doesn't really care if it came from a Nikon, Canon or Fuji. Is that true?

[ricktas]

Nik software is only for Nikon users, yes?? Mind you once it is in the computer, the computer doesn't really care if it came from a Nikon, Canon or Fuji. Is that true?

No, not for Nikon users. Nikon and Nik are two completely separate companies ; www.niksoftware.com

[Ms Monny]

Rick....I have used this tool (TAT) before but didn't know what it was called!! LOL. Yes, it is a great tool to use but I just didn't think what I was doing to the image was giving it more oomph that it needed.

As they say, you can't make a bad photo better just by post processing it! I have to learn to get it near perfect sooc first!!

Ah, I thought it was more for Nikon users....I am def going to check out the plugins when I get home tonight.
Thanks.

[soulman]

I think you have quite a few things working well in this shot and one huge thing working against you - the light. Regardless of the post processing, you have a very flat image where one of the major features - the tree - is in shade and nearly everything is muddy. No matter what you do, this shot still has unfavourable light.

The solution to this is not to get better at pp, but to get better at being in the right place when the light is better. Look at any picture by any landscape photographer - dtoh's work is a great example - and you will find that the light is always at least good, if not magnificent.

[Ms Monny]

Soulman - thanks! so very very true. The light was coming from the left of the image (3.30pm) and it was a very dull dull day....can't get vibrancy out of dull!!

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks for the TAT link ! I had been doing it all with layers in CS5 but this looks like it could be a huge time saver!

[ving]

gday plenty of advice here. I had a go at work but there is little i can do here. to get the tree and plants looking right i had to blow out the sky... at home i could mask the sky and end up with something close to what you are after... maybe even more!

[Ms Monny]

Ving...I wouldn't bother! Not that I don't appreciate what you would do - actually the complete opposite BUT it has started out as a flat, dull, overcast image and I don't think that no matter what you do it isn't going to look a million dollars. I am lucky and thankful of all the other edits and all the people helping me here.....I have learnt heaps. Thanks for looking and responding anyway...

[geoffsta]

I must admit.This has been one of the best threads I have read in a very long time.
Thanks to Ms Monny for starting it, and to everyone that has added there two cents worth.
Love to see a lot more of it throughout the whole site.

[Ms Monny]

Well, thanks Geoff!! Mind you I only put it up here cos I was frustrated with the image and hoped to get at least one feedback on it!! There should be more people putting up their 'OMG, WHAT TO DO NOW?' photos as it would definately help alot of people including themselves!!

[Steve Axford]

I have to agree with you that the image is unlikely to ever really pop. The lighting is just too flat. I think that most of the problem is recognising when the lighting is really good. Early morning or late afternoon is usually good, as is mist or fog. Overcast in the middle of the day isn't.

[achee]

can I do a HDR from a single image? Make one exposed for the sky, one the darker areas and one for midtones???

Hmmm... I've read that you can, but never tried it, as I'm usually taking 3 images if I'm planning to do a HDR. So, as I've read, (particularly if you have a RAW file) you can save 3 copies of the file, darken one, brighten the other, then combine the three into a HDR image. I'm not sure if that would achieve much... Maybe I'll try it someday!

[achee]

...it was slightly overexposed because I read somewhere that it is easier to recover highlights but harder to get detail out of underexposed blacks......

I think it is the opposite - you can bring more detail out of under-exposed areas than over-exposed areas, I reckon. I've heard (and practice) as a general rule of thumb you can increase the exposure of an image by about 2 stops, or decrease by about 1 stop, before it starts getting really nasty.

So if I'm shooting an image with a lot of dynamic range, and I'm after the details in both the brights and the shadows, I'll usually underexpose. Or shoot HDR.

[ricktas]

Yes you can make an HDR from one single RAW file. In your RAW processor, open your RAW file and adjust the exposure down a one or two stops. save a copy. Go back to the original RAW file and adjust the exposure up one or two stops, save a copy. Go back to the original RAW file and save it with the default exposure setting. There you have it, three copies of the one RAW file at different exposures. All ready to be merged into an HDR. You can experiment with more copies, or different exposure adjustments etc, just remember to save each one with a different name so you have them, ready for HDR.

[CAP]

Great thread, very interesting and informative.
Amazed at the different results obtained in some of the edits.

[Ms Monny]

Cool, thanks Rick, I might just try it.

[johnske]

Another approach, using Photoshop CS2 ...



Method
1) Curves: Autocurves

2) Shadow/Highlight Tool settings - this tool is often neglected, play around with the settings, this is what I used here ...

Shadow: 66%
Tonal Width: 50%
Radius: 30px

Highlights
Amount: 0
Tonal Width: 50%
Radius: 30px

Adlustments
Colour Correction: +75
Midtone Contrast: +20%

2) Unsharp Mask (regional/coarse sharpen) this can give a pseudo HDR "look", play round with it also and try bumping radius up even further, but back off if you get excessive halos
Amount 50%
Radius 10px

3) Unsharp Mask (local/fine sharpen)
Amount 50%
Radius 0.6px